Fw: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

oops.  Seems Jaime didn't cc this message to the DML, though my reply was
cc'd to the DML.  At his request, I forward it-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Cc: <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting


> Mickey Mortimer (mickey_mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:
>
> <<Rhynchocephalia Guenther 1867 = Apomorphy (1st lepidosaur with Sphenodon
> punctatus' premaxillary chisels).>>
>
>   Actually, this is ambiguous. The shape of the crowns in *Scaphonyx,* for
> example, are unlike those of the tuatara, as also in *Mesosaurus.* In this
> case, we are referring to a distal, apical shear point without mesiodistal
> carinae (1st character), rotation of the crown with respect to the
> maxillopalatal/mandibular dentition (2nd character) [combination of the
> 1st and 2nd forming "chisel" anatomy], fusion of the dentition to the bone
> (3rd character), and reduction of premaxillary dentition to at least ONE
> marginal crown (4th character). Hence, this is an "apomorphic suite"
> rather than "an apomorphy."
>
>
> <<Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci 1990 = Apomorphy (1st archosaur with
> Caiman crocodilus' fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal
> crurotarsal articulation).>>
>
>   *Caiman* does not signify the internal nodes, which are based on the
> younger named but precedent bearing nomenclature of *Crocodilus.* This is
> also why the most common used specifier, and not Linné's use, should be
> used. The common use of specifying ourselves as the mammal anchor, or
> *Passer* as the avian anchor, should continue with others. Linné's use of
> the nomenclature was sadly a LOT different than the use the names coined e
> enjoy today. (Especially when over a quarter of his names enjoy a rather
> _sexual_ application.)
>
>   Thus, in my opinion, *Crocodilus niloticus* should be the anchor, as the
> type species of *Crocodilus* and the type "genus" of the including clades
> Crocodylidae, Crocodyloidea, Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, etc. Hell,
> use "Crocodilida." Similarly, the definition resolves a completion of a
> series of changes, as in the rhynchocephalian apomorphy. Actual respect to
> why the element is referred to as "cross-ankle" should be used, rather
> than the morphological qualities of bone interacting proximal tarsals and
> their relationship with the metatarsus and tibiofibular complex (at least
> 10 characters here).
>
> David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:
>
> <Should better retain its original stem-based definition. Ah, this will be
> replaced with *Pancrocodylia*...>
>
>   I should hope that Crurotarsi is not replaced by "Pancrocodylia," if the
> latter is ever named. The latter is misused and ugly, and Crurotarsi names
> a different kind of clade.
>
> Mickey again:
>
> << Reptilia Laurentus 1768 = Crown (Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus +
> Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus).>>
>
>   *Draco*? *Lacerta.* It's called Lacertilia for a reason, not "Dracia."
>   *Chelonia*? *Testudo.* It's called Testudines (or Testudinata, take your
> pick) for a reason. Chelonida has been used as a slightly different clade,
> but almost interchangeably. Depends on the accepted main specifier.
>
> David:
>
> <I'd like a solution similar to *Sauropoda* -- *Eusauropoda* --
> *Neosauropoda*, *Theropoda* -- "Eutheropoda" -- *Neotheropoda* and *Aves*
> --  *Euornithes* -- *Neornithes*.>
>
>   There is no "Ornithes" ... well, unless Olshevsky gets to name his
> pan-stem for birds ... it will include all dinosaurs and would mean,
> essentially, "birds." There IS a Neoaves, but no Euaves.
>
> Mickey:
>
> << Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri +
> Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).>>
>
>   I wonder if we should be using *Archosaurus rossicus*? I know the name
> was coined post-Archosauria. Gauthier/deQuieroz/etal., guys should note
> the recommendation that the specifier for a clade, if named AFTER a taxon,
> should include that taxon. *Rhynchosaurus* should not be used, rather
> *Sphenodon,* since Rhynchocephalia was named to include IT, and it is not
> eponymous to *Rhynchosaurus.* That name should be used as the first
> internal anchor to Rhynchosauria, though, a subclade of Rhynchocephalia.
>
> David:
>
> <Perhaps just to be really certain, so that the BANDits can't complain?>
>
>   Archosauria should only be anchored on living taxa, likely as a crown,
> as was and has been used since. Let cladistics and the fact that dinosaurs
> would be derived in everyone's scientifically derived phylogeny as a
> descedant of the common ancestor of birds and crocs. Since birds derive
> from within dinosaurs, this will be hard to avoid. They can complain no
> matter what. The BANDits already dislike definitions and PhyloCode.
>
> <Currently a heterodefinitional synonym of the apomorphy-based one. Could
> stay so.>
>
>   Indeed. Diapsida = ("separation of the quadratojugal, jugal,
> postorbital, and squamosal around a fenestra separate from the 'temporal'
> fenestra" in *Lacerta agilis*). Of course, this is also probably a
> transformational suite for which the series is not well documented. Might
> separate ambiguous diapsids. The case seems to be wishy-washy for
> Ichthyopterygia.
>
> Mickey:
>
> <<Neornithes finally gets an official definition, from Sereno- Neornithes:
> Crown Clade (Passer domesticus not Crocodylus niloticus)>>
>
>   Wow. The fossil lineage of neornitheans.... Aves should be used for the
> crown, and Neornithes the internal node for Palaeognathae + Neognathae (AS
> USED). Good lord. People want *Archaeopteryx* as a member of Aves too bad.
>
> <<But he still can't get the hang of defining clades based on eponymous
> taxa-
>  Nodosauridae: Clade (Panoplosaurus mirus not Ankylosaurus magniventris)
>  Nodosaurinae: Clade (Panoplosaurus mirus not Sarcolestes leedsi,
>  Hylaeosaurus armatus, Polacanthus foxii)
>  Iguanodontia: Clade (Parasaurolophus walkeri not Hypsilophodon foxii,
>  Thescelosaurus neglectus, Parksosaurus warreni, Orodromeus makelai,
>  Othnielia rex, Zephyrosaurus schaffi, Yandusaurus hongheensis)
>  Hadrosauriformes: Clade (Iguanodon bernissartensis and Parasaurolophus
> walkeri)
>  Hadrosauroidea: Clade (Parasaurolophus walkeri not Iguanodon
> bernissartensis)>>
>
>   Good lord, I know it's not the best specimen in the world, but why not
> *Hadrosaurus foulkii* or *Nodosaurus textilis*? If you aren't going to use
> the nominative taxa, at LEAST coin new nomenclature. Panoplosauridae and
> Parasaurolophidae!! Naw....
>
> <<And isn't the type species of Stegosaurus S. armatus?  Why does he use
> S. stenops?  Wagner knows to use S. armatus.>>
>
>   Well, NO one should be using *S. armatus* since right now its mostly
> inside a mudstone block and half-prepared and has NEVER been described in
> detail or in use of comparative study. I would prefer resetting the type
> to *S. stenops,* but that may not be wise.
>
> <<Interestingly, Neornithischia seems to be the marginocephalian stem-
> Neornithischia: Clade (Triceratops horridus not Ankylosaurus magniventris,
> Stegosaurus stenops and Parasaurolophus walkeri)>>
>
>   I know Pete Buchholz doesn't like his paper and how it was published,
> but his "Chasmatopia" has been defined as the most inclusive stem for this
> clade. Looks like a typo. Neornithischia is also being used despite
> earlier use of Cerapoda [more elegant name, even] for the same clade
> Sereno originally used it for. I say fight for Cerapoda.
>
> <<And Sereno's always right, of course, so let's define Heterodontosaurus
> to be an ornithopod!
>  Ornithopoda: Clade (Heterodontosaurus tucki and Parasaurolophus
> walkeri)>>
>
>   Ick. BIG ick. ICK. There....
>
>   If *H. tucki* is closer to marginocephalians than ornithopods, then
> Ornithopoda becomes a senior heterodefinitional synonym (as currently
> recognized) for both Cerapoda and Neornithischia. Double ick ... ICK ICK.
>
>   Cheers,
>
> =====
> Jaime A. Headden
>
>   Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making
leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We
should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather
than zoom by it.
>
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>